Insider
Threat
Report
Out of sight
should never be
out of mind
business ready
Contents
IState of the Insider Threat
VERIS – Breach Discovery
Personnel Security
Scenario #1 – the Careless Worker
II Threat Actors
2
5
7
12
15
VERIS – Actor Varieties
15
Dark Web Monitoring
17
Enterprise Threat Hunting
17
Threat Intelligence
19
VERIS – Actor Motivations
21
Behavioral Analysis
24
Scenario #2 – the Inside Agent
27
IIIVictim Organizations
32
VERIS – Affected Industries
33
Incident Response
34
Digital Forensics
37
Scenario #3 – the Disgruntled Employee
40
IVMisuse Varieties and Vectors
43
VERIS – Misuse Varieties
44
VERIS – Misuse Vectors
45
Identity and Access Management
47
Privilege Access Management
51
Scenario #4 – the Malicious Insider
54
VAssets and Data
58
VERIS – Affected Assets
58
Asset Management
60
VERIS – Data Varieties
62
VERIS – Sensitive Data Breached by Industry
63
Data Classification and Protection
64
Scenario #5 – the Feckless Third-Party
66
VI Final Thoughts
69
2
Section I
State of the
Insider Threat
Adjusting to a major promotion, a wise colleague once remarked, “Management
would be easy if it weren’t for the people.” The same can be said for cyber risk
management. What’s more challenging: delivering an annual performance review,
or discovering that a valued employee has smuggled valuable digital information
through a backdoor? It’s easier to navigate conversations about attendance
and personal objectives than to conduct investigations into internal data leakage
(e.g., Confidentiality), fraud (e.g., Integrity) or sabotage (e.g., Availability) resulting
in a reportable data breach or cybersecurity incident.
Nonprofits, commercial organizations of all sizes and industries, and government agencies
must all be ready to face cybersecurity threats including data loss, theft, vandalism
and service disruptions. External actors—outsiders trying to break into your organization’s
systems—deserve real defensive effort and attention. But employees and partners
can do just as much damage from the inside. Whether from malice or negligence, the results
can be equally devastating.
Data Breaches and Cybersecurity Incidents Defined
As we discuss data breaches and cybersecurity incidents, we’ll use Data Breach
Investigations Report (DBIR) definitions:
• Incident
A security event that compromises the integrity, confidentiality or availability of an
information asset.
• Breach
An incident that results in the confirmed disclosure—not just potential exposure—of
data to an unauthorized party.
3
Section I
VERIS Framework
The Vocabulary for Event Recording and Incident Sharing (VERIS) Framework defines
threat actors as “entities that cause or contribute to an incident, whether malicious
or non-malicious, intentional or accidental, direct or indirect.” Threat action varieties
most attributable to insiders include Social (human assets are compromised), Misuse
(insiders are threat actors) and Error (people making mistakes). If you’re interested in
learning more about VERIS, check out these resources:
• VERIS Framework: veriscommunity.net
• VERIS Schema: github.com/vz-risk/veris
• VERIS Community Database: github.com/vz-risk/vcdb
The importance of being prepared for both external and internal threats is clear in reading the
2018 Verizon DBIR. With a data-driven overview of data breaches1 and cybersecurity
incidents, the DBIR identifies key incident classification patterns in cybersecurity incidents and
data breaches. Internal and external threats are both cause for concern:
Incidents per Pattern
Breaches per Pattern
Denial of Service
Web Application Attacks
414
21,409
Privilege Misuse
Miscellaneous Errors
347
10,637
Crimeware
Point of Sale
324
8,846
Web Application Attacks
Everything Else
4,850
308
Lost and Stolen Assets
Privilege Misuse
276
3,930
Miscellaneous Errors
Cyber-Espionage
2,106
171
Everything Else
Lost and Stolen Assets
145
736
Cyber-Espionage
Crimeware
347
140
Point of Sale
Payment Card Skimmers
111
Breaches
Incidents
330
Payment Card Skimmers
143
0%
50%
100%
2018 DBIR Figure 1. Percentage and count of incidents per pattern (n=53,308)
Denial of Service
0
0%
50%
100%
2018 DBIR Figure 2. Percentage and count of breaches per pattern (n=2,216)
Figures 1–2.
2018 DBIR Incidents per Pattern and Breaches per Pattern
1
The “n” value in this report represents the number of incidents or breaches. A singular incident / breach can feature multiple varieties of threat actions or other enumerations.
4
Section I
In Figure 1 (above), we see that Privilege Misuse2 (also called Insider and Privilege Misuse)
represents some 20% of all cybersecurity incidents and nearly 15% of all data breaches in
the 2018 DBIR. The Insider and Privilege Misuse pattern includes insider threats when external
threats collaborate with internal actors to gain unapproved access to assets.
Miscellaneous Errors rank second in the breach pattern column in Figure 2 (above).
When trusted insiders don’t follow established policies and procedures—such as emailing
confidential spreadsheets to their home accounts for weekend work, or faxing personal
information to an unconfirmed number—it’s clear that insider threat mitigation should be an
integral part of every organization’s security program.
Insiders have advantages over external actors seeking to circumvent security: insiders often
enjoy trust and privileges, as well as knowledge of organizational policies, processes and
procedures. They know when logging, monitoring and auditing are used to detect anomalous
events and behavior; and that it’s difficult to distinguish legitimate and malicious access to
applications, data and systems.
Close readers of the DBIR may recall that internal threats are defined as those “originating
from within the organization ... full-time (or part-time) employees, independent contractors,
interns and other staff.” For this Insider Threat Report, we’ll go a step further in defining insider
threats with five Data Breach Digest (DBD)3 scenarios:
1.0the Careless Worker (misusing assets). Employees or partners who misappropriate
resources, break acceptable use policies, mishandle data, install unauthorized applications
and use unapproved workarounds; their actions are inappropriate as opposed to
malicious, many of which fall within the world of Shadow IT (i.e., outside of IT knowledge
and management).
2.0the Inside Agent (stealing information on behalf of outsiders). Insiders recruited, solicited or
bribed by external parties to exfiltrate data.
3.0the Disgruntled Employee (destroying property). Insiders who seek to harm their
organization via destruction of data or disruption of business activity.
4.0the Malicious Insider (stealing information for personal gain). Actors with access to
corporate assets who use existing privileges to access information for personal gain.
5.0the Feckless Third-Party (compromising security). Business partners who compromise
security through negligence, misuse, or malicious access to or use of an asset.
In this report, we’ll discuss victim organizations and affected industries, threat actor misuse
varieties and vectors, as well as affected assets and data varieties. In framing countermeasures
and the building blocks for an Insider Threat Program, we’ll take a two-step approach: first,
knowing your assets and people and next, implementing 11 countermeasures to reduce risks and
improve responses.
Now, let’s look at VERIS data and some scenarios to see what we can learn.
All incidents tagged with the action category of Misuse – any unapproved or malicious use of organizational resources – fall within this pattern. This is mainly insider-only
misuse, but outsiders (due to collusion or privileges not disabled) and partners (because they are granted privileges) show up as well.
2
The Verizon Data Breach Digest (DBD) is a collection of data breach and cybersecurity incident scenarios experienced by our VTRAC | Investigative Response Team. These
scenarios illustrate how breaches work, including intrusion vectors, threat actions, and targeted vulnerabilities, as well as countermeasures for mitigating, detecting, and
responding to common and lethal scenarios.
3
5
5
Section I
VERIS —
Breach Discovery
The breach timeline metrics in our DBIRs paint a dismaying picture. External
attackers can compromise systems in hours or even minutes, while it can
take months or more for organizations to detect intrusions. Since insiders have
fewer barriers to overcome and compromises don’t require circumventing
controls, the time-to-compromise and time-to-exfiltrate metrics for insider threat
actions are grim.
This time from an unsanctioned action (such as unauthorized access to a database or email
transfer of sensitive data) to discovery represents a vast area for improvement. Most
breaches that begin with an abuse of access are only found months or years later. The timeto-discovery for breaches in the Insider and Privilege Misuse category over the last five
DBIRs (2014-2018) reflects this:
Breach Discovery
1 year (n=60)
5 years (n=325)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Seconds
Minutes
Hours
Days
Weeks
Months
Years
Figure 3.
Breach Time to Discovery within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
Whether culprits start with some level of privileged access or not, few breaches are discovered
within days or faster. With financially motivated breaches, the discovery method is usually
external. Fraud detection, identifying compromised payment cards, and consumer reporting of
identity theft are common ways organizations discover breaches. Over the previous five
DBIRs (2014-2018), only 4% of Insider and Privilege Misuse breaches were uncovered using
fraud detection, compared to over 20% of the remaining breaches.
6
Section I
Countermeasure —
Integrate Security Strategies and Policies
Create an Insider Threat Program that’s integrated into the overall security strategy
and policies. This strengthens efficiency, cohesion and timeliness in addressing insider
threats. Integration should include:
• Risk Management Framework
• Procurement Management System
• Business Continuity Plan (BCP)
• Disaster Recovery Program (DRP)
• Financial and Accounting Management Policies
• Legal and Regulatory Management
• Human Resources (HR) Management
• Security Awareness Program
• Intellectual Property Management
• Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC)
• Project Management
Priority for strategies and policies should be based on risk management, business
needs and industry benchmarking.
7
Section I
Personnel
Security
We’ve defined insiders as full- and part-time employees, independent
contractors, interns and other staff, as well as business partners and third parties
with some level of privileged access. Human resources controls, security
access principles, training and third-party management controls can
mitigate risks.
Human Resources Controls
Establish and periodically review HR processes including job descriptions, contract details,
hiring, onboarding, disciplinary actions and termination.
• Job Descriptions
Create clear job descriptions that detail tasks, responsibilities and requirements for
accessing systems. Senior leadership should approve descriptions.✓
• Contract Details
Ensure individual and organizational contract details delineate information security roles and
responsibilities. Obtain signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs).
• Hiring Process
Vet prospective employees through background checks and comprehensive screening
interviews. Perform sound pre-employment checks for job applicants. Depending on
the sensitivity of the position, these should include identification, education, previous
employment and financial and criminal background checks as applicable (e.g., Europe,
Japan). Obtain signed NDAs.
• O
nboarding Process
Conduct cybersecurity training as part of new hire onboarding. Issue equipment. Obtain
signed Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) and renew these AUPs annually.
• Disciplinary Process
Develop a disciplinary process for situations involving security breaches caused by
employees and others with inside access.
• Exit Process
Develop a formal process covering voluntary and involuntary termination. Include exit
interviews, user account termination and employee-issued property (e.g., laptops, equipment,
badges) return. Establish provisions remaining valid for a certain period after termination
(e.g., non-compete agreement, NDA).
8
Section I
Security Access Principles
While threats from unscrupulous or disgruntled employees may be unavoidable, there are
methods to limit damage. Our investigative experience confirms industry best practices
to prevent and mitigate insider threats through mandatory leave, job rotation, duty separation,
least privilege and “need-to-know.”
•1 Mandatory Leave
Require mandatory leave throughout the year. This serves as a deterrent and
detector (e.g., a coworker covering for a vacationing colleague could discover and
deter unauthorized activity).
•1 Job Rotation
Periodically rotate job functions. This can deter and detect inappropriate behavior
and provides the added benefit of skills cross-training.
•1 Duty Separation
Separate duties, especially for sensitive or shared processes and tasks. This ensures
no individual can complete a single task (e.g., dual password control).
•1 Least Privilege
Only assign access privileges minimally necessary to perform a task. This limits
unauthorized or unintended actions. Make sure access reflects any role changes.
•1 “Need-to-Know”
Only grant access necessary to perform a job or function. This limits
exposure of sensitive data and devices such as trade secrets, customer data and
proprietary information.
Terminating User Accounts
Upon notification of an employee or business relationship termination, take
these actions:
• 0 Disable user accounts; remove accounts from Active Directory
• 0 Terminate remote access (e.g., virtual private network (VPN))
• 0 Terminate remote web, mobile and other tool access
• 0 Terminate email account access; remove from distribution and group lists
9
Section I
Security Awareness Training
Employees are the first line of defense when combating many incidents, including insider
threats. Security awareness training for new employees, seasoned workers, management and
part-time employees reinforces what is and what isn’t acceptable. Training should have
full management support and tracking attendance or completion is recommended.
Start on an employee’s first day as part of onboarding and conduct at least annual refresher
training and assessment sessions. Supplement training throughout the year with emails,
login banners, desktop background reminders and awareness posters in workplace common
areas. Training should include:
•Policies and Procedures
What these are and why these have been defined. Review all current cybersecurity
policies associated with employees, including acceptable use, BYOD, information security
and physical security.
•Topical Security
How to spot social engineering attempts, how to recognize insider threat indicators
and how/when to report suspected security issues.
•Acceptable User Behavior
What is and what isn’t acceptable.
•1 Disciplinary Consequences
What the consequences are for unauthorized or malicious activity.
Drive compliance by obtaining online or written acknowledgement of responsibilities for
reporting suspicious behavior. Help employees recognize and report potential indicators of
insider threat activity. Establish an open door, anonymous or confidential policy for reporting
insider threat incidents to management, HR or other designated groups.
Preparing for Organization Changes
Be ready for the impact of organization changes including transfers and promotions.
Maintain strict “need-to-know.” Coordinate restructuring and job movement with
HR and management. Establish a termination protocol covering notification timing,
device disabling, as well as network and physical access removal. Safeguard
employee devices for a defined time after termination.
10
Section I
Educate employees on indicators of potential insider threat activity involving coworkers
or business partners, such as:
•1 Consistently working outside normal hours (e.g., when nobody is around).
•1 E
xhibiting patterns of security violations (e.g., repeatedly circumventing protocols by using
unauthorized USB flash drives).
•1 Attempting to access data, systems, or facilities without a valid reason (a “need-to-know”).
•1 Commenting on intent to steal or destroy data.
Countermeasure —
Implement Personnel Security Measures
Measures to mitigate cybersecurity incidents for employees and others granted
enterprise access include:
•1 H
uman Resources Controls
These span job descriptions, contract details, screening and hiring, onboarding,
disciplinary process and exit process.
•1 S
ecurity Access Principles
These include job rotation, duty separation, least privilege and “need-to-know.”
•1 S
ecurity Awareness Training
Topics include policies and procedures, acceptable use and potential
disciplinary consequences.
11
Section I
Third-Party Management Controls
The DBIR defines partners as any third-party sharing a business relationship with the
organization. This includes suppliers, vendors, hosting providers, outsourced IT support and
more. Some level of trust and privilege is usually implied between business partners.
Besides HR Controls, we advise implementing additional controls for vendor management.
Implement a Procurement Management System to track and control vendors and contract
requirements. Make these requirements measurable and use contractual leverage for
not fulfilling security requirements. Within these requirements, beyond Personnel Security
Principles, implement these controls:
•Use controlled workspaces for deterrence, prevention and monitoring.
•Implement a secure corporate email system; prohibit using personal web mail accounts
for business.
•Periodically review, reconcile, manage, and monitor all third-party account access to
networks, systems and applications.
•Identify and monitor highest-risk third-party user accounts.
Focus on critical controls for high-risk situations to help reduce violations and failures. Identify
high-risk situations by assessing factors including: highest risk access and highest attrition
vendors, high-spend contracts, overleveraged third parties and geographic distance. Ensure you
have the capability to identify and address any insider threat issues. Finally, consider the further
step of embedding cyber-trained, credentialed security personnel in high-risk environments.
Cloud Storage Data Collection Challenges
While cloud storage solves many issues, it also poses new challenges. Many
organizations benefit from moving local IT functions to the cloud, but in doing so, they
lose the control of having their own servers with employees responsible for security.
Organizations must have a documented process to extract data wholesale from a
cloud environment—whether unstructured data (such as file level backups), structured
data (such as databases) or entire virtual machines.
Simply downloading this data may not be practical: a hard drive may require transport
or a data center could require a visit. Organizations should make sure cloud services
providers are contractually obligated to help with this process; a Service Level
Agreement (SLA) should dictate this.
Finally, it’s been said a backup isn’t successful until it’s been restored once.
Organizations should assume their cloud services provider won’t release your data
until you’ve retrieved it at least once in a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) exercise
or data breach simulation.
12
Section I
Scenario #1 —
the Careless Worker
The careless worker is one of the more difficult threat actors to defend against.
Their actions include mistakes, misusing assets and credentials and using
unapproved workarounds.
The Situation
4
We are a growing technology consulting business and we recently won a major contract
requiring us to quickly hire technical staff. The award generated substantial good press for
us and we received numerous inquiries from talent interested in joining our organization.
As an HR Manager, I know that rapid hiring often leads to hiring candidates who appear
great on paper but fall short in applicable skills. I’ve also seen highly qualified candidates
overlooked because they’re intimidated by traditional job interviews. Accordingly, I suggested
we host an online “hackathon” event to assess technical skills in near real-time and identify
quality candidates.
We have many virtual teams across the country collaborating on projects. I decided the
hackathon would require candidates to work in groups, so we could assess technical
and teamwork skills as we sought to hire project managers, business analysts, network
architects and information security analysts.
After reassuring management that a hackathon isn’t actual “hacking,” the idea was embraced
and I was asked to lead the initiative. We engaged our Information Technology (IT) team
to help HR set up the event. The IT team proposed using a web application that would take
nearly three months to design, test and implement. We let them know we only had two
weeks. After initial pushback, the IT team agreed and quickly set to work.
Over the next two weeks, I worked with our external recruiting agency to develop a list
of candidates to invite. The theme would be “Technology to Improve Business and Personal
Productivity” and the goal was helping our employees address work-life balance.
The IT team designed and tested the web application. The app included hackathon project
questions and an online registration form that saved candidate details to a database.
HR and management approved the app and we went live with registration the next day.
The hackathon was an enormous success, resulting in multiple hires. A few days later,
though, I received an alert on my mobile phone: “Confidential – Web Application Data Breach
Incident.” Our Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) was calling an Incident Response
(IR) stakeholder meeting.
This scenario was published originally as the stand-alone DBD scenario “Web app attack – the Tuple-Row Honey” (https://enterprise.verizon.com/resources/).
4
13
Section I
Investigative Response
The IT security team had detected significant inbound traffic accessing the web application
server, along with several anti-virus (AV) detection alerts. We engaged the Verizon Threat
Research Advisory Center (VTRAC) | Investigative Response Team and they were on their way
to investigate.
The IR stakeholder meeting attendees included our General Manager, a General Counsel
Representative, the CISO, the IT security team, the IT team who’d worked on the hackathon
web application, two VTRAC investigators and me.
The CISO started by informing us that our “Hackathon Talent Search Event” was the apparent
source of a cybersecurity incident and later Personal Identifiable Information (PII) data
breach. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. We’d taken precautions to vet the candidates.
I blurted out, “Why’d they go and cause this trouble on our systems when they were
looking for an employment opportunity with us?”
At this point, the General Counsel Representative leaned forward, asking, “So, let me get this
straight. You’re saying we’ve got a breach of PII on our hands here?!”
The VTRAC investigators went to work with the IT security team and determined that the
incident wasn’t caused by a job candidate, but rather by a malicious attacker who’d discovered
the web app server and exploited a vulnerability.
The vulnerability was described as a remote code execution attack. The investigators
determined that an outdated version of the web application framework had been used and
that a web application firewall (WAF) wasn’t in place. Several web shells allowing remote
access were discovered on the server. The attacker accessed these web shells prior to their
detection and quarantine by the installed AV software.
The investigation also discovered signs of remote logins and successful database queries
on the job candidate database. Finally, the logs indicated the attacker had plundered the data,
including the candidates’ personal information.
Since the attacker accessed PII data, we had a legal obligation to notify several states’
attorneys general and the affected individuals. I immediately worked with our Legal and
Executive Management teams to craft data breach notification letters, create holding
statements and tailor our corporate messaging to address this unfortunate event.
The IT team knew the web application was running an outdated framework and had been
planning to upgrade it after the first hackathon. Given that the invite was sent to a
handful of vetted individuals, they assumed it would be okay to briefly run the vulnerable
application without a WAF. Fortunately, they had segmented the web application from
the corporate network, reducing the potential for additional data exfiltration.
14
Section I
Lessons Learned
The big lesson learned was that once a server is on the Internet, it’s there for all to see and
access—not just invited individuals. IT security teams must be active in all projects, not mere
afterthoughts. It’s crucial not to rush development without considering organization-wide security.
Mitigation and Prevention
• D
evelop web apps based on industry best practices; follow the Secure SDLC; incorporate
information security throughout the life cycle.
• S
can web apps for vulnerabilities; perform periodic penetration tests; develop a patch
management program to swiftly patch and update identified vulnerabilities.
• S
et host-based and enterprise AV solutions to be continuously updated with the latest engine
and virus definitions.
• Install WAFs, a File Integrity Monitoring (FIM) solution, and host / network Intrusion Detection
Systems (IDS); maintain enough logging.
• Implement proper data segregation and network segmentation, especially with critical data
and systems.
Detection and Response
• A
ssemble the IR Team; include stakeholders relevant to the specific cybersecurity incident;
engage law enforcement at the right time and with advice from legal counsel.
• E
ngage a qualified and experienced digital forensics firm for investigative response activities
including malware analysis, endpoint forensics, network forensics, threat intelligence and
containment and eradication support.
• C
ollect and preserve evidence; use vetted tools and procedures for evidence collection and
preservation; potential evidence includes volatile data, hard disk drive images, network packet
captures and log data.
• L
everage established and documented evidence handling procedures; use evidence tags, chain
of custody forms and an evidence tracking log to secure, preserve, collect and store evidence.
• P
repare public relations responses for various data breach scenarios ahead of time; adjust the
response to specific circumstances.
Deterring Insider Threat Activities
Effective security policies and standards can deter insider threats. Policies should
include acceptable use, Bring Your Own Device (BYOD), information security
and physical security. Conduct annual information and physical security training for
all employees. Use login banners, screen savers and desktop backgrounds
to remind users actions are being monitored and policy violations are flagged.
Consider publishing anonymized security violation statistics.
15
Section II
Threat
Actors
Verizon’s DBIR defines Insider and Privilege Misuse as trusted actors leveraging
logical or physical access in an inappropriate or malicious manner. This is mainly
insider-only misuse, but outsiders (through collusion) and partners (via granted
privileges) also show up in the dataset. Internal threat actors operate from a
position of trust, which they use to steal, corrupt or destroy data, disrupt business
operations or embarrass an organization. Insider threats include full- and part-time
employees, interns, business partners, contractors and outside service providers.
VERIS —
Actor Varieties
Reviewing our DBIR Insider and Privilege Misuse data for internal threat actor
varieties over the previous year (2018), we see Other (30.8%), End User (30.1%),
Doctor or Nurse (16.0%), and Manager (5.8%) as the most prevalent actors.
Nearly 61% of internal actors are defined as “Other” or “End User” and aren’t in
positions granting them a higher level of access or stature to influence. The top 10
threat varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse for 2018 and for the previous
five years (2014-2018) are:
16
Section II
Internal Actor Varieties
1 year (n=156)
5 years (n=683)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Other
End User
Doctor or Nurse
Manager
Developer
Executive
Cashier
Sys Admin
Finance
Human Resources
Figure 4.
Internal Actor Varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
The VERIS Framework establishes varieties or roles of internal threat actors. The question
we are attempting to answer is: how often are roles with higher user privilege (e.g.,
System Administrators), access to monetizable data (e.g., Cashier / Bank Teller / Finance) or
privy to sensitive corporate strategies/plans (e.g., Manager or Executive) responsible
or involved in data breaches?
Interestingly, this quote from the 2013 DBIR remains relevant: “Data theft involving
programmers, administrators or executives certainly makes for interesting anecdotes, but is
still less common in our overall dataset than incidents driven by employees with little
to no technical aptitude or organizational power.” Regular users have access to sensitive
and monetizable data and are behind most internal data breaches.
17
Section II
Dark Web
Monitoring
Dark web monitoring tracks cybersecurity threats and activities on the hidden
Internet. Many companies have programs to detect and anticipate these threats,
using tools and techniques to infiltrate cybercriminal activity hubs. These include
black markets, where stolen data and other information on organizations or
employees is sold. Also included are social sites and forums where users can
post and reply to topics. Finally, these include dump sites, such as Pastebin,
where anonymous people can post information including confidential documents,
emails, databases and other sensitive data.
Enterprise
Threat Hunting
Organizations must now assume that external attackers are already inside their
network. Cyber threats continue to evolve, ranging from off-the-dark-web malware
and ransomware to more complex and targeted threats. It’s crucial to detect these
threats quickly to reduce the risk of valuable business assets being compromised.
A key aspect of enterprise threat hunting is using high-quality data and sound strategies
to start the process. The process can be analyst-driven or assisted by machine learning
technology. Focus areas for threat hunting include log management and correlation, full packet
capture, endpoint detection, honeypots, as well as IDS and other network and security
infrastructure.
Many organizations are struggling with cybersecurity efforts because of a daunting worldwide
InfoSec talent shortage. Autonomous threat hunting can decrease dependence on human
analysts, with accurate and comprehensive security solutions that support and augment
human staff.
Maintaining a proactive approach to threats can prove the best defense.
18
Section II
Countermeasure —
Conduct Threat Hunting Activities
This includes periodically searching to detect and investigate risks inside and
outside the enterprise. Leverage intelligence for actionable insights. Intelligence
sources should include:
• ✓Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT)
Intelligence derived from publicly available sources (e.g., the Internet).
• ✓Dark Web Monitoring
Knowledge gained regarding activity on the restricted and hidden Internet.
• ✓Cybersecurity News Feeds
Insights from open source media broadcasts and articles.
• ✓Knowledge-Sharing Partners
Information from industry-related groups (e.g., Financial Services - Information
Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC); Payment Card Industry (PCI)
Security Standards Council (SSC); and government entities (e.g., FBI Private
Industry Notification (PIN), national governmental CERT).
• ✓Cybersecurity Incidents
Historical record of incidents and events detected, responded to, and investigated;
includes applied containment, eradication and remediation measures.
• ✓Enterprise Detection and Response (EDR) Solutions
A unified capability for cybersecurity and incident response tasks that span
monitoring, detection, alerting, investigating and mitigation.
19
Section II
Threat
Intelligence
When something is wrong, people often try to mask their emotions. But they
usually show signs such as changes in behavior, whether their distress is
personal, professional or psychological. Too often though, it’s only after an
incident that such personal issues are recognized as motivators.
Whatever the work environment, someone near the at-risk employee likely witnessed
something at one point. They may have ignored signs, not added things up or not cared enough
to mention anything. One way to combat missed signs is through indicator bubbles—
spheres of seemingly unrelated employee changes. These can be grouped together to identify
potential issues.
Potential Indicator of an Insider Threat –
Elicitation
Elicitation is a technique to discreetly gather information, used by a skilled collector in
a seemingly typical social or professional conversation. Victims (elicitees) may never
realize they were the target of an attempt to obtain meaningful information.
To be ready for this threat, it’s important to understand how elicitation works.
Often, an elicitee has some of these characteristics:
•1 Desires to appear well-informed
•1 Tendency to gossip
•1 Desires to be appreciated and show they have something to contribute
•1 Tendency to correct others
•1 Believes others are honest
•1 Is prone to showing off
On the other side of the equation, an elictor tends to have these characteristics:
•1 Pretends to know of associations in common with the elicitee
•1 Feigns ignorance of a topic
•1 Exploits the elicitee’s instinct to complain or brag
•1 Uses flattery and appreciation as psychological tools
•1 Obliquely introduces topics in order to gain insight
•1 Deliberately says something wrong, hoping the elicitee will offer a correction
20
5 years (n=683)
50%
40%
Section II
30%
20%
10%
Taken alone, an indicator could have normal, natural causes. It’s important to understand
0
that a single indicator, or even multiple ones, doesn’t mean your employee is an active insider
Other
End User
Doctor or Nurse
Manager
Executive
Cashier
Sys Admin
threat. But they
can indicate
something
is wrong
and that Developer
more attention
could enhance
the employee’s well-being—and thus the organization’s. These indicator “bubbles” may surface
individually. When viewed collectively, these can indicate insider threat activity.
Finance
Human Resources
Hates Law
Enforcement/
Authority
Gained
Weight
Doesn’t Adapt
to Criticism
Conspiracy
Theories
Depression
Talks about
Suing Company
Questionable
Behavior
Entitlement
Conflicts
with
Coworkers
Sudden
Withdrawal
Excessive
Printing
Rough Divorce
Negative
Physical
Changes
Not Motivated
Introversion
Late Start,
Long Lunch
Stopped
Bathing
Attempts
Expanding
Access
Abuses Power
Undue
Affluence
Secret
Moonlighting
Reduced
Loyalty
Minimizing
Mistakes
Accesses
Unauthorized
Systems
Vulnerable
to Blackmail
Conflicts
with
Supervisors
Makes
Threats
Suspicious
Internet
Activity
Takes Sensitive
Documents Home
Ethical
Flexibility
Comments
against
Leadership
Unexplained
Absences
Mental Health
Changes
Medical Problems
Irritability
Rebellious
Personality
Foreign
Visits
Gambling
Abuse
Tardiness
Negative Attitude
Frustration
Overall
Distress
Comments
against
Nation
Security
Violations
Hostile
Behavior
Substance
Abuse
Disappointment
about Not
Getting a Raise
Declining
Performance
Mad about Not
Getting a Raise
Brings Weapons
to Work
Poor Evals
Narcissism
Works Outside
Hours
Financial
Troubles
Figure 5.
Table
##.Indicator Bubbles
Insider
Threat
Threat Actor Motives Defined
Countering this threat through organization-wide situational awareness training is vital
to ongoing security efforts. Security is the responsibility of all employees, not just IT security
teams. All employees should be encouraged to report suspicious activity, which can
include insider
threats. Dedicated intelligence
teams can also be created to detect and report
Motive
Examples
on these types of threats.
Financial:
Seeking monetary gain for financial problems; being susceptible to monetary rewards or blackmail to
Espionage:
Espionage or employment
at a competitor
Using stolen data for future advantage (e.g., starting a competitor or taking as opposed to quick
financial gain.
Convenience:
Convenience of Expediency
Downloading sensitive data to a USB drive for working at home; using unauthorized software or
configuration changes to make duties easier.
Grudge:
Grudge or Personal Defense
Seeking revenge over perceived mistreatment by management or colleagues; retaliating against
management or desiring to damage the organization.
Many organizations
conduct drug screening,
investigations,
and data collection
Financial or personal
engagebackground
in malicious activities
gain
(e.g., social media checks, credit history, etc.) when hiring new employees. These checks
shouldn’tFun:
be a one-off event; instead, they
should be conducted periodically throughout an
Accessing medical records of patients out of curiosity, not to commit identity theft; breaking acceptable
employee’s
Fun, career.
curiosity, or pride
use policies by visiting inappropriate websites; using admin privileges to access employee emails.
Ideology:
Having a fundamental opposition to an organization's practices or mission.
21
Section II
VERIS —
Actor Motivations
Another way of considering insider threats is to assess activity as intentional
or unintentional. Unintentional insider threats can be as impactful as
intentional ones.
Unintentional actions result mostly from employees making mistakes at work. An error may
happen while hastily redeploying a firewall in a production environment or emailing data to
the wrong recipient. There are many reasons for mistakes and they can never be completely
prevented. Such unintentional incidents fall into Other Incident patterns5 and aren’t in-scope
for this report. Also, by definition, such incidents don’t have a motive.
Potential Indicator of an Insider Threat –
Requesting Access to Information Outside Normal Job Duties,
Including Sensitive or Classified Information
Small business employees typically perform general and varied duties, while most
employees in larger organizations have more specific roles. Small and large business
owners alike should know the essential functions and typical duties of each employee.
This allows easier identification of potential insider threats.
Further, employees should be aware of conduct by colleagues, which could merit more
scrutiny and reporting, including:
•1 A
sking others to obtain access to restricted, sensitive information they’re not
authorized to view.
•1 Undue curiosity about information not within job scope or “need-to-know.”
•1 R
etention of classified, proprietary, or sensitive information obtained during previous
employment, without the authorization of that employer.
•1 E
xtensive and unexplained use of copier, fax, or computer equipment to reproduce
or transmit sensitive, proprietary material.
•1 U
nexplained affluence or lifestyle inconsistent with relative income level, such as
sudden purchase of high-value items or unusually frequent personal travel.
5
Unintentional actions that lead to incidents and breaches are typically categorized in the Miscellaneous Error or the Lost and Stolen Assets pattern.
22
Section II
Intentional actions from insiders, whether malicious or inappropriate, have a motive; we record
motives in our dataset whenever they’re discernable. Different motivations drive insiders to
become threat actors. Most significant are financial gain or revenge (against the employer or
colleagues). Intentional insider threat motivations include:
Motive
Examples
Financial:
Financial or Personal
Seeking monetary gain for financial problems; being susceptible to monetary rewards or
blackmail to engage in malicious activities gain.
Fun:
Fun, Curiosity, or Pride
Accessing medical records of patients out of curiosity, not to commit identity theft;
breaking acceptable use policies by visiting inappropriate websites; using admin privileges
to access employee emails.
Espionage:
Espionage or Employment
at a Competitor
Using stolen data for future advantage (e.g., starting a competitor or taking employment at
a competitor) as opposed to quick financial gain.
Convenience:
Convenience of Expediency
Downloading sensitive data to a USB drive for working at home; using unauthorized
software or configuration changes to make duties easier.
Grudge:
Grudge or Personal Defense
Seeking revenge over perceived mistreatment by management or colleagues; retaliating
against management or desiring to damage the organization.
Ideology:
Ideology or Protest
Having a fundamental opposition to an organization’s practices or mission.
Fear:
Fear of Duress
Fearing layoffs or other organizational changes; feeling duress from a superior to act
inappropriately or maliciously.
Table 6.
Threat Actor Motives Defined
23
Section II
Reviewing our 2018 DBIR data, we see that the top threat actor motivations were Financial
(47.8%), Fun (23.4%), and Espionage (14.4%). The seven threat actor motivations within Insider
and Privilege Misuse for 2018 and the previous five years (2014-2018) are:
Internal Actor Motivations
1 year (n=201)
5 years (n=821)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Financial
Espionage
Fun
Convenience
Grudge
Ideology
Fear
Figure 7.
Internal Actor Motivations within Insider Privilege and Misuse Breaches
In viewing different motivations by actor type—internal, external, and partner—we gain further
insight into threat actor motivations for the previous five years (2014-2018):
Actor Motivations (5 Years)
Internal (n=1180)
External (n=6650)
Partner (n=48)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Financial
Espionage
Fun
Convenience
Grudge
Ideology
Fear
Figure 8.
Actor Motivations within Insider Privilege and Misuse Breaches
Most people behind data breaches, whether insiders or not, are motivated by money;
historically, this has been the primary driver for compromising data. We see similar
percentages of data breaches associated with the espionage motive. A common scenario here
is the exfiltration of internal data or intellectual property for a new endeavor.
Fun (including curiosity and pride) is an interesting motivator. A lone hacker may compromise
an organization’s data just to show they can. Out of curiosity, a healthcare worker might snoop
medical records of patients not in their care, or an employee could access a criminal database
to check on a relative or acquaintance.
24
Section II
Behavioral
Analysis
Insider threat detection tools are often signature-based. These techniques
(such as watch list IP addresses, hash signatures, specific strings in
packets, etc.) are useful, but may be analogous to reading yesterday’s news.
Consider supplementing them with behavioral anomaly detection methods.
Behavioral anomaly detection provides a proactive view into the current environment
(like anticipating tomorrow’s news). Understanding the drivers behind network anomalies can
help proactively identify insider threat trends before they cause major problems.
Anomaly Detection
3
Security Alert
2
1
Normal Internet Traffic
Figure 9.
Behavior Anomaly Threat Detection
Our investigations uncovered examples of behavioral analysis detecting potential insider threats:
Malicious Insider
We uncovered an internal device performing targeted (e.g., NetBIOS, Secure Shell (SSH),
Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), remote admin, ports, etc.) scans across a network
segment. Investigation confirmed the device wasn’t an authorized corporate scanner. This
raised concerns that an internal employee was seeking access to unauthorized infrastructure.
Careless Worker
We detected a broad range of customer devices sending unusual small packets to several
Microsoft Azure IP addresses. The Microsoft Azure IP addresses had recent reputational
histories of hosting phishing sites such as a fake PayPal site and Microsoft web mail site.
The concern was that many employees were phished via email or SMS and enticed to enter
credentials in the bogus web sites.
Another Careless Worker
We identified unusually large two-way traffic between a customer device and multiple ISP IP
addresses over a well-known port for hosting Xbox online gaming services. Employees were
consuming bandwidth for non-business purposes, exposing corporate assets to security risks.
25
Section II
Monitoring and Logging Activity
Enhance logical access controls by restricting, monitoring and logging logical access
to sensitive systems and data. This includes critical network segments, network
devices, servers, workstations, as well as key accounts, applications and files.
Establish baselines for normal user account behavior and network activity and then
monitor and log-review for suspicious events:
•1 Increase configuration change logging and alerting, to include user account creation
and modification.
•1 C
reate and monitor alerts related to abnormal authentication events, such as
numerous password resets in brief periods and access from foreign sources.
•1 Implement robust access controls and monitoring and logging policies for privileged
user accounts.
•1 P
eriodically review logs of accounts accessing critical and sensitive systems to
detect unusual or elevated account activity.
Use a SIEM solution, or better yet, a User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA)
solution to monitor, detect, and log suspicious user account activities. To ensure
preparedness, test logging and monitoring systems to verify the required data exists
and can be used if an attack occurs. If a data breach occurs, review user account,
application, system, and network logs to determine the extent of the compromise and
to identify other assets that may have been targeted.
Using NetFlow for Baselining “Normal” Network Behavior
Many organizations use NetFlow for reporting and post-event analysis. But NetFlow
can also be leveraged to build a baseline of typical network behavior—then detect new
security events in near real-time.
For near real-time, network-based, anomalous behavior detection, seek anomalous
behavior in NetFlow data rather than relying on signatures. Understanding the
drivers behind network anomalies can help teams proactively identify threats before
they become major problems.
26
Section II
Countermeasure —
Implement Network Security Solutions
This includes implementing network perimeter and segment security solutions for
network traffic monitoring, capture, and analysis. These solutions should include:
•Network-Based Firewalls
Software or hardware security system for monitoring and controlling incoming and
outgoing network traffic based on predetermined security rules.
•Network IDS
System for analyzing packets and alerts (passive) on suspicious network activity.
•Network Intrusion Prevention System (IPS)
System for analyzing packets and blocking (active) suspicious network activity;
active form of IDS; typically possesses a subset of IDS rules and coexists with IDS.
•Web Security Gateway
Solution based on security zones and data classification for preventing traffic, such as
unwanted software and malware, from entering or exiting the enterprise environment.
•Email Security Gateway
Service or device for providing email content filtering or analytics.
•Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Solution
Tool for preventing data exfiltration in two states: Data In-Use DLP, which monitors
endpoint data with which users are interacting, and Data In-Motion DLP, which
monitors traffic data from endpoint to endpoint.
•SIEM Solution
Tool for reviewing aggregated log data from network, security device, systems and
applications for suspicious or anomalous system activity.
•Segmentation
Strategy for segmenting network and segregating data, especially with critical
systems and data for security, access and monitoring purposes.
Monitor and then alert upon suspicious network traffic, such as unusual off-hours activity,
volumes of outbound activity and remote connections. Leverage a SIEM capability to
monitor insider threat activities. Periodically update detection rules and watch lists.
27
Section II
Scenario #2 —
­
the Inside Agent
When inside agents hide their true intentions, it can be difficult to detect
their malicious behavior. They typically work on behalf of an external threat actor
and secretly steal information for them.
The Situation
6
Contractors such as auditors and janitorial staff can be nearly invisible in large corporate
environments. A purposeful stride or prop of authority such as a clipboard or even a
mop can enter virtually anywhere. Some contractors can access broader, more varied areas
than a typical employee. Accordingly, a contractor given an economic or vengeful incentive
can become a potent threat vector.
Most employees have little awareness of operational changes involving vendors, service
providers, or contractors. These details, hidden away inside HR and Accounting departments,
focus on keeping the organization running. So it was unsurprising when neither I nor the
rest of the IT security team had any idea about problems brewing with our contracted janitorial
service. The contracting organization had announced a unilateral pay cut for all employees,
revealing this mere weeks before the holiday season.
Even if we’d known of these contracting changes, few would have guessed that a malicious
individual offering “bonus pay” would approach the increasingly emotional and desperate
janitors. The task was easy: simply carry a USB flash drive in each day. Plug it into a system.
Get paid. Feelings of retribution toward the contracting organization, mixed with financial
strain, were enough to convince more than one janitor to accept the cover story.
The janitors, hidden in plain sight, had access to nearly everything and quickly compromised
multiple systems without arousing suspicion. The infected systems would likely have
remained hidden for weeks or months if an alert administrator hadn’t noticed unexpected
command shell pop-ups upon logging in. A brief investigation showed these tasks
were running under a local administrator account and didn’t seem related to any legitimate
business activity. After adding notes to a trouble ticket, he went on to other tasks.
6
This scenario was published originally as the DBD scenario “USB Infection – the Hot Tamale” (https://enterprise.verizon.com/resources/).
28
Section II
Investigative Response
This is where I entered the situation. As an internal investigator, I’m tasked with figuring out
what it all means. Are these system artifacts malicious? Are these left over from previous
configurations? Ultimately, how did this get there? My organization wanted answers.
The first task was to establish a footprint of systems affected by the attack. This list would
help guide me to determine the initial infection vector. Having met with the IT security team
to understand the artifacts, I pulled domain and system logs from the initially identified
workstation. These artifacts turned out to be what are called Indicators of Compromise (IoCs),
common ways of locating additional systems affected by a known piece of malware.
Searching through the domain logs with these IoCs in hand, I was able to quickly identify
several other systems, each of which had been accessed by the same local administrator
account within the same timeframe as the suspect system. This correlation expanded the
investigation to include systems beyond the one originally anticipated.
With the larger list of systems enumerated, I presented my preliminary findings to our HR
and Legal teams and identified various options. The decision was made to call in the
VTRAC | Investigative Response Team to conduct digital forensic analysis on this system,
and determine to the extent possible the nature of the malicious activity. The VTRAC
investigators forensically imaged the in-scope systems. These images were subjected
to multiple types of review, ranging from analysis of the Windows Registry hives to examining
system log files and reviewing the shortcuts for suspicious linkages.
Analysis of the systems’ logs revealed suspicious command line activity and exploitation
attempts, as well as subsequent, unsuccessful cleanup attempts. Interestingly, these same
logs showed a USB device driver being loaded onto the system just prior to these exploit
attempts. Based on serial numbers in the Windows Registry and other artifacts, it was
determined the USB device was a cheap flash drive indistinguishable from dozens of others.
Employing Additional Access Controls
•1 Disable unauthorized / restrict access to removable media (e.g., USB flash drives).
•1 Restrict (and monitor) cloud-related data transfers.
•1 R
estrict File Transfer Protocol (FTP) / Secure File Transfer Protocol (SFTP)
data transfers.
29
Section II
In our organization, there’s an official policy against such devices, but it’s rarely enforced. The
problem with USB devices in corporate environments is that once a device is plugged in, it
could force system configuration changes or allow unauthorized programs to run. This could
then allow many other actions. I believed this potential threat and suspicious timing merited
further review.
An artifact showed a USB device had been connected to the system, but the central question
remained: who connected it? Armed with date-time stamps relating to the USB device, I met
with the team responsible for overseeing physical security of the organization’s facility. I hoped
we might track physical access to the system during the relevant timeframe. To my elation,
they informed me badge access was required for the room where the system was located.
I was very eager to see these logs! The Director of Physical Security produced them for me.
I found there wasn’t much access to the room around the time the USB device activity was
identified. The only thing that stood out was the janitorial staff doing their cleaning rounds.
It took some time but I finally had the key insight. Could a janitor be my primary suspect? Could
they have been plugging something into that workstation? I thought we should ask.
Our HR Department and physical security team interviewed the janitor concerned, and they
admitted to plugging the USB device into multiple systems. These systems and timeframes
matched identically with my log review and the VTRAC investigators’ analysis results. With
the technical portion of the analysis complete, I sat back and watched as our HR Department
continued to interview the janitor. He expressed remorse, but explained that the upcoming
pay cuts would have caused extreme difficulty for him and his coworkers. The prospect of
additional holiday spending money and a lack of understanding about the potential for damage
led them down a path they couldn’t reverse.
Lessons Learned
The janitor was terminated and the exploit attempts ceased. Further review indicated
the activity was caught before the threat actor could extract privileged information.
Remediation included increased monitoring of IoCs and cleaning up the affected systems.
Future mitigation was implemented by changing logging and centralizing hardware devices
across sensitive and restricted systems.
While there were digital components to this breach, the biggest takeaway is the importance
of physical security. Direct access to a device can circumvent many security controls.
Access to USB ports can allow bad actors to load malicious software when a device is
rebooted in safe mode or has its drives removed to bypass password security. These technical
and physical considerations substantially impacted this case study:
30
Section II
Mitigation and Prevention
•Establish USB device access / AV policy
Host-based enforcement limiting USB device port access could have stopped this attack.
Certain organization-provided devices could be whitelisted to not completely remove
functionality. Host-based AV can scan any media newly connected to a workstation
or device.
•Disable auto-run functionality
IT teams capable of remotely updating system configurations should disable auto-run on nonaffected systems to limit potential spread of USB-based infections.
•Enhance host-based logging and alerting
If not for the vigilance of a systems administrator, this incident might have gone unnoticed
long enough to inflict serious damage. The physical vector often creates some network noise
in which similar activity is discovered. Here, logs were present for systems, but there was no
alerting functionality triggered on suspect activity.
•Leverage network access controls
In this scenario, the adversary was defeated early in the reconnaissance stage. However,
the organization employs a relatively flat network design, so systems may have expanded
accessibility to sensitive systems. Implementing network access controls made it harder to use
less secure systems to compromise more secure ones.
•Set up physical access alerting
Access cards allowing limited access to certain areas secure many offices. However, it’s
trivial for a card to be stolen or cloned. Alerts were created and monitored to look for
consistent access patterns, such as an employee’s badge being used several hundred feet
from their last scan within a short timeframe.
Detection and Response
•Review physical security access controls
Badge readers, security cameras, and sign-in logs shouldn’t be ignored; these can reduce
suspicious activities requiring investigation.
•Use an EDR solution to identify affected systems
Once an affected system is identified, disk forensics paired with an EDR solution can allow a
direct view into additional systems that may be affected.
•Review network and application logs
Review logs related to compromised systems or user accounts to determine other assets
that may be targeted.
•Conduct personnel interviews
Interviewing employees, contractors, or other people with access to affected devices can
help identify suspicious behavior. These interviews may uncover otherwise unexpected
events on affected systems, which can provide investigative leads for forensic investigators.
31
Section II
Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard ­—
Mitigating Insider Threats by Enhancing Data Protection Controls
It takes just one person going rogue to render security controls ineffective and compromise sensitive data. It’s common for
insiders – employees, contractors, and third-party suppliers – to have access to restricted systems and data as part of their
everyday job functions or even inadvertently. While insider threats can never be eliminated, organizations can reduce risks
by maintaining a healthy control environment, strengthening control effectiveness through deliberate design, and actively
managing security controls year-round. For the PCI environment, this is where the PCI Data Security Standard (DSS) comes
into play.
How have organizations performed in keeping controls in place? An analysis of 237 confirmed payment card data breaches
investigated by the VTRAC | Investigative Response Team from 2010-2017, across 35 countries, provides a good indicator of
how well organizations have maintained sustainable control environments. At the time of a data breach, typically fewer than
one-third of organizations were complying with any particular PCI DSS key requirement and none met all requirements:
Trend7
PCI DSS Key Requirement
27.1%
Requirement 3 – Protect Stored Data.
Use methods such as encryption and tokenization; delete data no longer needed; track data storage, processing, and transmission;
identify systems containing, and people accessing, sensitive data.
21.8%
Requirement 6 – Develop and Maintain Secure Systems.
Perform ongoing system and application life cycle management; govern development and maintenance;
use integrated change control and configuration management; establish a process to review code change logs and
verify changes before releasing code into production.
30.1%
Requirement 7 – Restrict Access by Limiting Each User’s Access Rights to the Minimum.
Grant access only on a “need-to-know” basis; maintain separation of duties to mitigate insider threat activities; regularly review
employee access to ensure alignment with current “need-to-know” job requirements.
31.3%
Requirement 8 – Authenticate Access.
Authenticate access to system components; assign each user a unique identification preferably using strong MFA.
8.4%
22.0%
32.9%
Requirement 10 – Track and Monitor Access.
Track and monitor access to detect and identify irregular activities and mitigate insider threat risks; ensure users are aware activities
are being monitored to dissuade destructive, dishonest, illegal, and errant activities.
Requirement 11 – Test Security Systems and Processes.
Conduct vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, file integrity monitoring, and intrusion detection to identify and address
weaknesses; when necessary, perform root cause analysis to determine cause, and preventive and detective controls to ensure that
insiders aren’t circumventing the control environment.
Requirement 12 – Security Management.
Maintain periodic training and awareness, assign clear responsibilities, and communicate policies and procedures aligned
with the periodic risk assessments.
Percentage of Organizations PCI DSS Key Requirement Compliant at the Time of a Breach
7
The effectiveness of these controls is influenced by nine factors. Read more about it in Verizon’s 2018 Payment Security Report.
32
Section III
Victim
Organizations
Certain types of data breaches correlate strongly to particular industries:
attacks against point-of-sale systems in the food service industry or skimmers
at gas pumps. But other kinds of attacks are more opportunistic and don’t
target a specific organization or industry. Privilege Misuse leans in this direction.
Some industries generate monetizable data such as bank, payment, or PII; others have
customer lists or bidding information. In short, all types of companies have assets of
value—and employees who could threaten these assets by misuse ranging from inappropriate
web use to storing sensitive data on a thumb drive to stealing a coworker’s identity.
Potential Indicator of an Insider Threat –
Unreported Offers of Financial Assistance, Gifts,
or Favors by a Foreign National or Stranger
Not all spies seek to be spies. Some are recruited; others divulge information
unknowingly through elicitation methods. Gifts, financial assistance, or other favors
from foreign nationals, businesses, or governments can compromise employees,
leaving them vulnerable to blackmail, extortion, or being coerced into providing
confidential proprietary information. Indications of this behavior including taking
short trips to foreign countries, or visiting foreign facilities in domestic areas for
unexplained reasons.
33
Section III
VERIS —
Affected Industries
Viewing Insider and Privilege Misuse breaches over the previous year (2018),
Healthcare and Social Assistance (46.4%) and Public Administration (18.5%) are
the top industries involving privileged threat actors causing the most damage.
In the 2018 DBIR, a particular industry’s representation in Figure 10 (below) isn’t a security
gauge; more doesn’t correlate to less secure. The totals below are influenced by our sources:
industry- or data-specific disclosure laws. The top 15 victim industries within Insider and
Privilege Misuse for 2018 and for the previous five years (2014-2018) are:
Affected Industries
1 year (n=276)
5 years (n=1196)
Healthcare and Social Assistance (62)
Public Administration (92)
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (54)
Financial and Insurance (52)
Manufacturing (31-33)
Retail Trade (43-45)
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing (53)
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (21)
Accommodation and Food Services (72)
Admin & Support, Waste Management, Remediation (56)
Education Services (61)
Transportation and Warehousing (48-49)
Information (51)
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (71)
Utilities (22)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Figure 10.
Affected Industries within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
8
In both the 2018 DBIR and 2018 Protected Health Information Data Breach Report (PHIDBR),9
healthcare is the only industry with insider actors—not external actors—responsible for
a higher percentage of breaches. Easy access to medical records and personal information,
combined with a duty to disclose, influences this industry’s representation in Figure 10 (above).
Instead of comparing industries, it’s more helpful to understand and monitor user access to
sensitive data, and reduce authorization creep. We focus more on detecting potential insider
misuse in the Misuse Vectors and Varieties section.
8
NAICS = North American Industrial Classification System (www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/) or (https://www.naics.com/naics-drilldown-table/)
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/verizon-insights-lab/phi/2018/
9
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/verizon-insights-lab/phi/2018/
34
Section III
Incident
Response
Incident Response (IR) is the methodological approach to cybersecurity incident
response. It consists of an established IR process, an IR Plan (often accompanied
by specific IR playbooks), designated IR stakeholders (e.g., Chief Information
Security Officer (CISO), Legal Counsel, HR), a tactical IR Team (e.g., Computer
Emergency Response Team (CERT) / Computer Security Incident Response
Team (CSIRT)) and a Communication Plan. The IR process usually consists
of several phases such as planning and preparation, detection and validation,
containment and remediation, collection and analysis, remediation and recovery,
and assessment and documentation.
IR Team
Responding to and resolving cybersecurity incidents and data breaches demands effort
from varied stakeholders, technical and non-technical. For insider threat situations, it’s not
uncommon to have HR, legal counsel, IT security, and other functional areas collaborating
throughout an investigation. They address topics including scope expansion, discovering other
illicit activity, sensitive data exposure (and reporting), privacy considerations, and eventual
employee termination. Organizations should also contact law enforcement at the right time
and with advice from legal counsel. In addition, they should engage a qualified, experienced
digital forensics firm for breach response activities including deep-dive investigations as well
as containment and eradication support.
IR Plan / Insider Threat Playbook
As part of an overall IR Plan, create an Insider Threat Playbook and regularly review, test and
update it. It should parallel the IR Plan, but also specifically explain effective management
of an insider threat data breach or cybersecurity incident. It should include guidance to involve
specific stakeholders, such as legal counsel, HR, a digital forensics firm, and, if required, law
enforcement. It should also include the policy on handling employee-related investigations,
collecting and analyzing evidence sources, conducting witness and subject interviews and
notifying organization oversight bodies, regulators, and other external entities.
35
Section III
Containment and Eradication
In addition to collecting and preserving any potential evidence, it’s crucial to contain and eradicate
any previous or ongoing threats. Threat actors may have gained physical or logical access into
systems, deployed malware, destroyed hardware, modified code or even set up logic bombs
for data destruction or system disruption. Containment activities include temporarily blocking
outbound Internet traffic, changing user account passwords and searching for malware across
the network. Eradication activities may include rebuilding affected systems, disabling compromised
user accounts, and removing suspicious and malicious files and any HR-related activities.
Countermeasure —
Establish Incident Management Capabilities
These capabilities can detect and respond effectively to known or suspected system
breaches, system failures, or other unusual activity. These should include:
• I ncident Response (IR) Process
Establish a process covering the six IR phases: planning and preparation, detection
and validation, containment and remediation, collection and analysis, remediation and
recovery, and assessment and documentation.
• IR Plan
Create an IR Plan covering the six IR phases.
• I nsider Threat Playbook
Create an Insider Threat Playbook for responding to insider threat cybersecurity
incidents; this should supplement the IR Plan.
• IR Team
Identify the IR Team; include stakeholders relevant to the specific incident; engage
law enforcement when the time is right and with advice from legal counsel; engage
third-party investigators when applicable.
• Communication Plan
Draft an IR Stakeholder Communication Plan covering who, how, and when to
contact or escalate to IR stakeholders; update regularly.
36
Section III
Creating an IR Stakeholder Communication Plan
Create an IR Stakeholder Communication Plan and update it at least annually and
after any major security incident. Include an up-to-date IR stakeholder contact list
and reporting timeframe requirements for specific stakeholders (e.g., within 24 hours,
within 48 hours, within 7 business days). These timeframes should align with any
existing regulatory reporting requirements.
The Communication Plan should list authorized information-sharing communication
methods (e.g., email, phone, wikis, chat, as well as data- and intelligence-sharing
platforms). Specifically, the Communication Plan should provide for and define
emergency and secure communication methods:
•1 Emergency Communication
Method or tool used during a cybersecurity incident to communicate critical
information promptly and reliably.
•1 Secure Communication
Method or tool used during a cybersecurity incident to communicate critical
information reliably and securely (e.g., out-of-band communication, encrypted
communication).
Include handling and marking requirements such as “Attorney-Client Work Product,”
“Confidential,” “Privileged Communications.” Finally, prepare public relations responses
for various data breach scenarios and adjust them to specific circumstances.
37
Section III
Digital
Forensics
Digital forensics take incident responses to the next level, going deeper than
Security Information and Event Monitoring (SIEM) and other tool alerts and
logging. Digital forensics include evidence collection and preservation (including
proper handling), evidence parsing and analysis and reporting findings.
Collection and Preservation
Scope and triage the incident quickly, but remain flexible, as the scope may need adjustment
as the investigation continues. Use tested, familiar tools and procedures for evidence collection
and preservation. These should include software and hardware capable of collecting physical
memory dumps, volatile data, hard disk drive images, removable media images, network packet
captures and NetFlow and log data. Leverage established and documented procedures for
securing, preserving, collecting, storing and decommissioning evidence. Use templates, tags,
chain of custody forms, and tracking logs to secure, preserve, collect and store evidence.
Parsing and Analysis
Use tested and familiar tools and procedures for parsing and analysis. At a basic level,
evidence for analysis may include volatile data / physical memory, system images, malware
/ suspicious files, system / network logs, and NetFlow / network packets. Parse and analyze
digital evidence to determine user account activity, system / network access vectors, malware
execution indicators and notable files (e.g., dual-use tools, scripts, malware output files, etc.)
and conduct a general security review.
Personnel Interviews
When responding to an incident, don’t neglect the human element. Interview personnel with
access to facilities, workspaces and digital devices. This can add insight to digital forensic
findings and the overall situation. For insiders suspected of malicious activity, interviews can
determine the nature of their actions. Conduct interviews under organizational policy and with
HR and legal counsel involved.
38
Section III
Insider Threat Incident Evidence Sources
Evidence for insider threat incidents can involve any device accessed or used
by the insider, or any device or person witnessing the insider’s activities.
These may include closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage, physical access
logs, supervisor / coworker, systems / servers, smartphones / mobile
devices, SIEM (e.g., network, system, Internet access, email and other application logs)
logs, NetFlow data, packet captures and dark web / OSINT information.
Top Five Victim-Controllable Investigative Challenges!
In previous publications such as the DBD, we’ve presented the “top five victimcontrollable investigative challenges.” These five challenges consistently appear in our
investigations and continue to plague incident response efforts. They include:
•Logs, Logs, Logs
Specifically, non-existence or not enough (rolling over too quickly), or difficulty in
promptly locating or retrieving.
•Network Topologies and Asset Inventories
Lacking or being severely outdated.
•Baseline Images and Trusted Processes
Lacking entirely, being inaccurate, or outdated.
•“Dual-Use” Tools
Tools (e.g., PsExec, PowerShell) left on the system prior to its breach (storing them
in the Windows Recycler isn’t a security option), or with no detection of their use.
•Self-Inflicted Anti-Forensics
Rebuilding systems first, then calling forensic experts; containing and eradicating
but not properly documenting actions; pulling the power cable and not the network
cable; and shallow investigations by unqualified IT team members.
39
Section III
Countermeasure —
Retain Digital Forensics Services
These digital forensics services can be used for situations requiring a deep-dive
investigation into cybersecurity incidents, involving collecting and analyzing network
traffic, system activity, as well as data and file content activity. Services should include:
•Digital Forensics Capability
Engage a qualified and experienced digital forensics firm for investigative activities
including malware analysis, endpoint forensics, network forensics, threat intelligence
and containment and eradication support.
•Evidence Handling
Use established and documented evidence-handling procedures: evidence
tags, chain of custody forms, and a tracking log to secure, preserve, collect and
store evidence.
•Endpoint Devices
Collect and analyze endpoint system evidence; use vetted tools and procedures
for evidence collection and preservation; potential evidence includes volatile data,
system images, network packet captures and log data.
•Network Logs and Traffic
Collect access logs to key servers and email; collect network logs and raw network
packet data wherever possible; examine quickly.
•Other Evidence
Consider collecting and reviewing nonstandard evidence sources such as IT Help
Desk tickets, call recordings and employee interviews.
•Additional Support
Consider adding external litigation support and e-discovery capabilities if not
already on board.
40
Section III
Scenario #3 —
the Disgruntled Employee
Disgruntled employees aren’t just angry. They’re potentially dangerous,
even if they don’t resort to physical violence. Some may turn to cybercrime,
including stealing information, destroying property, systems or data
and disrupting business operations.
The Situation
10
By definition, employees have access to privileged systems and information; this means large amounts
of legitimate activity will need to be sorted through during breach response efforts. Any employee
can be angry enough to do something malicious and therefore special care needs to be taken around
events that can increase employee emotions.
Firing people was rarely an interesting job, but as I sat filling out the final forms for terminating Mr.
Simpson, I breathed a sigh of relief, glad to be done with the ordeal. On the surface, it seemed like a
straightforward case. Mr. Simpson’s team was being merged with another team and he was unhappy
with the new hierarchy. After being informed by a friend in HR about the upcoming changes, Mr.
Simpson began using his administrative access to take over other accounts. He ultimately attempted
to disrupt operations—a vindictive response to being underappreciated—and downloaded confidential
files (a bargaining chip for his next job). It seemed so cut-and-dried—he did it and admitted to it—but
still the lawyers required us to collect the evidence to prove it.
Investigative Response
I don’t imagine most investigations begin with the answer, but with a very candid confession from the
primary suspect, ours did. We knew how, when, and what happened from Mr. Simpson’s description
and by the time we engaged the VTRAC | Investigative Response Team, all we needed them to do was
document and verify the claims from a technical point of view. Once we knew we had the whole truth, I
could then expect to fill out a stack of forms to safely terminate Mr. Simpson’s employment.
The events that led to Mr. Simpson’s confession were well-documented. On an otherwise
normal Friday afternoon, a programmer reported that an application was experiencing unexpected
failures and an internal investigation began. This investigation turned up multiple suspicious log entries
showing Mr. Simpson logging in to the application server only minutes before the problems started.
The logs showed failed super user account access from Mr. Simpson, followed by password resets
of service accounts. These findings could potentially have been legitimate, as Mr. Simpson was an
IT administrator, but the circumstances surrounding them—no ticket or prior notification—led to the
interviews in which he eventually revealed his actions, in hopes of leniency.
10
This scenario was published originally as the DBD scenario “Disgruntled Employee – the Absolute Zero” (https://enterprise.verizon.com/resources/).
41
Section III
In addition to the known application server activities, Mr. Simpson admitted to accessing
multiple email boxes using the service accounts to collect data for interview use and to insert
scheduled jobs designed to disrupt his new team’s workflows. This was a lot of data to sort
through, and I honestly didn’t know where to begin looking to verify these claims. Thankfully,
our IT security department had called in the VTRAC Team to assist in the digital forensic
examination to determine if Mr. Simpson had left any other surprises for us to find.
The VTRAC Team requested a huge number of log files and mailbox summaries, and
immediately started digging in. It was only the next day when preliminary findings began
coming back to us. The investigators verified that Mr. Simpson had used his access to
compromise other accounts. Much to my surprise, included in their initial findings was a listing
of every file he had downloaded from another user’s inbox, which looked like it included
everything from operations documents to product technical details. This was more than a
bargaining chip. This was corporate theft. Beyond the stolen files was a second listing of
scheduled jobs inserted by Mr. Simpson. The jobs were exclusively mass delete commands
scheduled to occur at critical times over the next year: during tax season, prior to holiday
bonuses, and a few seemingly random dates.
While our internal teams worked to remove the jobs and validate the contents of each stolen
file, the VTRAC Team investigators moved on to their second phase – discovering any other
activity to which Mr. Simpson may not have confessed. After requesting “network logs”
from our IT security team, the investigators turned to searching for known threat actors
and suspicious activity. They also focused analysis on the time range defined by the service
account compromises. A few days and a dozen email requests later, a second set of findings
arrived from the VTRAC Team.
The VTRAC Team review of the network traffic had identified suspicious connections to a
server in Romania. This particular server was owned by a short-term lease hosting location
using Bitcoin as payment. The report explained that this was currency used frequently by
hackers wishing to remain anonymous, and while completely unrelated to Mr. Simpson’s
activity, many other attacks had involved this system. Closing out the findings was a set of
instructions for our IT security team on how to find and identify the internal system in question.
It took our IT security team only a few hours to find the suspicious system and remove it from
the network for further review. The on-site VTRAC Team investigators collected a forensic
system image and shipped it to the VTRAC Labs for examination. This proved fruitless;
comparisons with known malicious files and analysis of changes around the time of the
network activity revealed nothing. Both the IT security team and VTRAC Team were baffled,
as the traffic was definitely coming from this system and had stopped immediately after the
device was taken offline; however, nothing seemed to be out of place. We were getting antsy.
Returning to the physical device, the VTRAC Team investigators began to collect additional
forensic information and had a lucky break. While plugging in a USB keyboard to issue
commands, the investigator noticed an extension on the plug itself. When pried, it popped
off, revealing an off-the-shelf, clandestine keylogger. The VTRAC Team explained that the
keylogger was designed to capture any input a user provided via the keyboard and was
sending the capture to the rented Romanian server. I was stunned; this was the kind of thing
I thought I’d see in a movie, not my job, but the proof was there in our hands.
42
Section III
Mr. Simpson’s actions were vindictive and done in response to the recent restructuring of the
company’s IT Department. One of Mr. Simpson’s main motivations was to make the new IT
Department appear incompetent. He had admitted that he was planning to use the information
he stole as leverage in finding a job with a competitor and possibly profit from his exploits.
Finally, he had lied about the extent of his actions and clearly had gone beyond simply being
upset. With the evidence and paperwork in hand, Mr. Simpson was summarily fired and the
forensic reports were provided to law enforcement.
Lessons Learned
Our company narrowly dodged a bullet in that some of our most sensitive information and
intellectual property was nearly stolen; we learned several lessons as a result of this incident.
One lesson was that the friend in HR should not have notified Mr. Simpson. Details regarding
restructuring and moving of specific jobs should be closely held and carefully coordinated with
department managers. Another was the company should have had an action plan in place, such
as increased monitoring of employees affected by the transition, to reduce the risk of vindictive
behavior by those affected. Finally, as part of the transition, the company should also have
conducted a thorough asset inventory. Doing so might have identified any installed keyloggers.
43
Section IV
Misuse Varieties
and Vectors
The Insider and Privilege Misuse pattern is obviously based on incidents and
breaches where a threat action category of Misuse is present.
The VERIS Framework further defines actions within the Misuse category by type or variety
of misuse, as well as vector of misuse. Misuse vector clarifies if privileged physical or logical
access was leveraged—and if logical, whether the activity was conducted from a cubicle,
corporate LAN, or via remote access. This section will address these issues, then look deeper
into specific misuses.
Countermeasure —
Employ Physical Security Measures
Employ physical security measures to limit access to sensitive areas. This should
include identity badges, turnstiles, gates or doors with card swipes, and PIN Entry
Device or biometry readers for multi-factor authentication (MFA). For highly sensitive
areas, restrict cameras, smartphones, and external storage devices; restrict Bluetooth
and Wi-Fi; and conduct monitoring and logging.
Monitor and set alerts for suspicious physical access patterns and activities for
sensitive areas. Use physical security measures such as cameras, motion detectors
and guards at entrance and exit points.
44
Section IV
VERIS —
Misuse Varieties
When we examine misuse varieties in last year’s 2018, we see Privilege Abuse (73.6%), Data
Mishandling (20.1%), and Possession Abuse (8.1%) as the top misuse varieties. The top
10 misuse varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse for 2018 and for the previous five years
(2014-2018) are:
Misuse Varieties
1 year (n=273)
5 years (n=1161)
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Privilege
Abuse
Data
Mishandling
Possession
Abuse
Unapproved
Work-Around
Knowledge
Abuse
Unapproved
Hardware
Unapproved
Software
Email
Misuse
Net
Misuse
Illicit
Content
Figure 11.
Top 10 Misuse Varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
Privilege Abuse is simply using existing logical access in an unauthorized manner. An example
is a bank employee accessing a customer’s account and writing down their account
numbers. Its simplicity and the many employee roles requiring swift access to sensitive data
are the main reasons for its prominence. Examples of Data Mishandling are copying sensitive
information to a USB flash drive or emailing data to personal email accounts to work over
the weekend (or something more sinister).
Possession Abuse is similar to Privilege Abuse, only this is leveraging physical access to data
and assets. Historically we have seen incidents where food servers will use a hand-held
card skimmer while they have a customer’s physical payment card. Other misuse actions
include leveraging private knowledge and breaking various use policies.
45
Section IV
VERIS —
Misuse Vectors
When we survey misuse vectors within Insider and Privilege Misuse in last year’s DBIR, we see
LAN Access (82.5%) and, distantly in second place, Physical Access (13.4%) as the top
misuse vectors. This correlates with Privilege Abuse and Possession Abuse threat actions in the
previous section. Most unsanctioned activity is within the cubicle walls during employee shifts:
Misuse Vectors
1 year (n=246)
5 years (n=1033)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
LAN Access
Physical Access
Remote Access
Other
Non-Corporate
Figure 12.
Misuse Vectors within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
Remote access entry points shouldn’t be ignored. We encounter cases where insiders will
use local and remote connectivity in their actions. There are also numerous instances of
recently dismissed employees using old remote access privileges (that should have been
disabled) to log in to an organization’s environment. This is categorized as Privilege Misuse,
since from a VPN server viewpoint, the privileges still exist.
46
Section IV
Implementing Multi-Factor Authentication
MFA is access control authenticating users with two or more independent forms of
identification. These span three categories: something you know, such as a usercreated password, something you have, such as a one-time passcode (OTP), and
something you are, such as your fingerprint or retina scan.
If your organization hasn’t already done so, move beyond single-factor authentication
and implement MFA. Require MFA for VPN remote connections to the corporate
environment, and especially for accessing sensitive resources such as VPN or email
from external sources.
47
Section IV
Identity and Access
Figure
##. IAM Framework
Management
AnFramework
effective Identity and Access Management (IAM) Framework includes
IAM
core processes, supporting processes and is governed by stated policies.
Core IAM processes include:
Business
Owner
Access
Management
Human
Resources
Governance
Asset Owner
Information Assets
HR
Management
Repository
IAM
Authentication
Management
Identity
Management
Identity
Repository
Federation
Figure 13.
IAM Framework
Table ##. Common Privileged Accounts
Account Type
Characteristics
Shared Administrative
Accounts
Shared privileged non-human accounts providing admin access to a local host (e.g., root)
Priviledged Accounts
Privileged user accounts providing admin access to one or more systems.
48
Section IV
Identity Management
The primary goal of identity management is to address the life cycle of identities for
objects, entities (e.g., systems, devices, or other processes), and persons needing trusted
access to organizational assets (e.g., information, systems, servers, networks and
facilities). Accordingly, identity life cycle management must include creating, provisioning,
updating, tracking and ultimately decommissioning identities.
Federation
In the IAM Framework in Figure 13 (p. 47), federation is between identity management
and authentication management. Identity federation adds a new dimension to authentication
management, by connecting multiple identity management systems. It’s often used for
accessing cloud-based applications, or by organizations using multiple identity repositories.
Identity federation adds concepts of “trust” among connected identity systems. User credentials
are stored at their home organization, commonly called Identity Provider.
A Cloud Access Security Broker (CASB) solution enforces security policy between an enterprise
and a cloud service provider. Logging on to a cloud service or an application handled by another
identity management service provider, requires this service provider to trust another provider
to validate the user’s credentials. Identity federation is often used in Single Sign-On
(SSO) schemes. SSO can be accomplished using identity federation. However, the opposite
isn’t necessarily true.
Authentication Management
The primary goal of authentication management is to link a person who wants to use an
application or system (component) to a digital identity, establishing the validity of this
digital identity. By itself, authentication doesn't authorize the identity to use the application
or system (component). Methods for authentication include:
•1 T
raditional verification using a single verifier (something you know, such as a usernamepassword combination).
•1 B
iometric (physical trait) authentication using a single verifier (something you are,
such as a fingerprint).
•1 M
FA using a secondary verifier (something you know complemented by something you
have or something you are).
•1 SSO through a centralized authentication system.
These can be used for multiple forms of access: specific (mobile) devices, remote access,
or direct access.
49
Section IV
Access Management
The primary goal of access management is to approve and assign access privileges,
manage changes, and monitor the access environment. This ensures alignment with business
requirements, and helps reduce risk to organizational assets. The goal is accomplished
by defining access controls and constraints, based on a model sanctioned by information
asset owners.
Governance
In the IAM Framework in Figure 13 (p. 47), governance falls between identity management
and access management. Periodic reviews of identities and associated access logs are essential
to find and quickly correct inconsistencies in access privileges and identity definitions.
Protecting Privileged Accounts
Taking these steps can help protect privileged accounts:
•1 M
inimize privileged accounts; remove accounts and account privileges when no
longer required.
•1 Monitor sessions; periodically audit accounts and account privileges.
•1 M
ake it policy and practice to use admin accounts (with MFA) only when needed; use
user accounts for everyday functions.
•1 Implement least privilege access control; limit access to only those required to
perform the task.
•1 Implement MFA; use strong passwords; protect credentials through vaulting with
automated rotation.
•1 Manage shared privileged accounts through user request and approval workflows.
50
Section IV
Countermeasure —
Employ Identity and Access Management Measures
Employ access measures to manage identity, access, and authentication into the
enterprise environment. These should include:
• Identity Management
Address the life cycle of identities for objects, entities (e.g., systems, devices, or
other processes) and persons needing trusted access to organizational assets.
• Authentication Management
Link a person who wants to use an application or system (component) to a digital
identity, establishing the validity of this digital identity.
• Authentication Management
Approve and assign access privileges, manage changes and monitor the
access environment.
Consider using a PAM (Privileged Access Management) solution, adding protection
for privileged access, which incorporates privileged user logon with login channels,
authentication options, password vaulting, session management, host access control
with privilege escalation and logging throughout the process.
51
Section IV
Privilege Access
Management
Special consideration should be given to accounts with administrative privileges.
Typically, these admin user accounts are granted elevated privileges for
managing IT infrastructure services and components. Examples of accounts
with administrative privileges are Windows domain admin accounts, accounts for
systems and network engineering, non-personal, functional, or shared accounts
such as “root” or “DBA,” and service accounts.
Privileged accounts are those granted privileges beyond everyday user accounts. Having
access to privileged accounts provides a threat actor (or legitimate user) with access to
additional systems and services. These are often among the first targets of external attackers
or malicious insiders intending to cause financial loss, data loss and reputational damage.
Privileged accounts can be human-used or non-human-used. Human-used privileged accounts
are typically personal accounts to which elevated privileges have been assigned (e.g., domain
admin), or non-personal shared accounts used for system management (e.g., “root” or “DBA”).
Non-human privileged accounts are typically service and application accounts. Common
privileged accounts are:
Account Type
Characteristics
Shared
Administrative Accounts
Shared privileged non-human accounts providing admin access to a local host (e.g., root).
Privileged Accounts
Privileged user accounts providing admin access to one or more systems.
Administrative Accounts
High-privileged user accounts with administrative access to systems and servers within
a domain; having complete control over all domain controllers and the ability to modify
privileged account membership within the domain.
Emergency
Privileged Accounts
High-privileged user accounts providing unprivileged users with administrative access for
securing systems if an emergency occurs (a.k.a. breakglass or firecall accounts).
Service Accounts
Privileged non-human local or domain accounts used by applications or services to interact
with the operating system.
Accounts
Privileged non-human accounts used by applications accessing databases running scripts
or sub-processes and accessing other applications.
Table 14.
Common Privileged Accounts
52
Section IV
A Privileged Access Management (PAM) solution is the first line of defense for protecting
infrastructural components (e.g., network components, databases, configurations for systems
and applications) in an IT landscape. PAM aims to mitigate threats to accounts that hold
privileges beyond those required for regular users performing daily work functions.
Given
that
PAM
is aSolution
high-tech,Capabilities
not out-of-the-box solution, it requires integration into overall IT
Figure
##.
PAM
security architecture. A high-level PAM solution is outlined in Figure 14A (below):
Self-Service Capabilities
Privileged User Logon
Login Channel (Local, Remote)
Multiple Authentication Options
(MFA, SAML, Kerberos, etc.)
Session Management
(SSH, RDP, etc.)
Logging and Monitoring
Password Vault
SIEM Integration
Ticketing System
Integration
Audit and Management
Reporting
Host Access Control
and Privileged Escalation
Access Flow
Mapped Solutions
Privileged User Logon +
Login Channels
Secure logon (e.g., local, remote) capabilities.
Authentication
Options
Table
##. PAM
SolutionAuthentication
Mappingcapabilities (e.g., MFA, SAML, Kerberos).
AccessVaulting
Flow
Password
Mapped
Check-out / Solutions
check-in credentials with automated rotation capabilities.
Privileged User Logon +
Login Channels
Secure logon (e.g., local, remote) capabilities.
Authentication Options
Authentication capabilities (e.g., MFA, SAML, Kerberos)
Session Management
Host Access Control +
Privilege Escalation
Enable session management and recording capabilities.
Manage shared / personal privileged accounts.
Password Vaulting
Check-out / check-in credentials with automated rotation capabilities.
Session Management
Enable session management and recording capabilities.
Host Access Control +
Manage shared / personal privileged accounts.
Privilege14A.
Escalation
Figure
PAM Solution Capabilities
Figure ##. Affected Asset Varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
53
Affected Assets
1 year (n=224)
5 years (n=1005)
Section IV
Potential Indicator of an Insider Threat –
Attempts to Gain, or Actually Gaining, Access to Systems or Data
Without a Valid “Need-to-Know”
Inside threats can be difficult to defend against because they often know how to subvert
detection systems. They can misuse servers and systems to gain access to unauthorized
information such as trade secrets, proprietary information and sensitive technology.
A malicious insider can authorize applications to transfer money or send trade secrets,
or steal payment information by bypassing usual security authentication and authorization
steps. Gaining access, they can disclose sensitive information resulting in loss of
reputation, market share and competitive edge.
Warning signs for these individuals include:
•1 Asking others for access to sensitive information they’re not authorized to access.
•1 A
ttempts to remotely access a computer network from outside systems without
proper authorization.
•1 Unauthorized removal of sensitive material from the workplace.
•1 Bringing sensitive information or systems home or on trips without proper authorization.
•1 W
orking unusual hours, or accessing IT systems and areas after normal hours without
logical reason.
•1 B
ringing cameras or other recording devices without approval into areas with
sensitive material.
54
Section IV
Scenario #4 ­—
the Malicious Insider
Malicious insiders who hide their true feelings can be difficult to detect. They
typically act on their own, stealing information for personal gain. Leveraging
inside knowledge and access, they are often tougher to defend against than
outsider attacks.
They leverage access to endpoint systems, servers, networks, and organization domains—
often using access given to them to perform their daily duties. Because they’re inside the
system, there’s no need to hack into the enterprise or navigate its defenses.
A malicious insider is a current or former employee, contractor, or business partner who meets
these criteria: they have or once had authorized access to an organization’s network, system,
or data; and they have intentionally exceeded or intentionally used that access to negatively
affect the organization’s information.
The Situation
“Snap. Snap. Snap.” The sound is coming from a coworker’s cubicle: a mobile phone taking
photos. Maybe they’re selfies? The noise keeps repeating, so you overcome social inhibitions
and check what’s happening.
Your coworker is taking pictures of their computer screen—which is showing customer
financial data. You tell your manager, who confronts your coworker immediately. They
claim they were just taking selfies. Should management take their phone? What if it’s a
corporate phone?
Investigative Response
Don’t take the phone. Instead, call a rigorous forensics investigations partner such as
Verizon and ask them to pull photos from the employee’s corporate cloud drive. In this case,
management uncovered hundreds of photos of customer banking data. The employee had
been doing this for weeks, according to time stamps.
What would you have done if this was their personal phone?
55
Section IV
During the exit briefing, the employee signs papers claiming it’s all a misunderstanding. They
wouldn’t have done anything with the data, and it’s not technically a breach of information
since the photos never left a corporate device. They went from corporate monitor to corporate
smartphone, and they will sue you for wrongful termination.
You engage the VTRAC | Dark Web Threat Hunting Team to see what they can find on the
surface, deep, and dark web. They quickly find the coworker’s partner on social media, and that
they have a criminal record for putting card skimmers at gas pumps and selling the information
on the dark web.
Your investigation also uncovers that another employee seated nearby also witnessed
suspicious behavior (they never reported it; another problem). This employee had been using
headphones and didn’t hear any phone camera shutter noise.
You’re still not done. Affected customers could potentially fall victim to financial fraud. You
need to know whether the employee accessed other records: maybe copied by hand, on
another phone, or transmitted by other means. How far back do you take response effort?
Does this qualify as a breach? Do you report this to law enforcement? What policy should you
implement to prevent this from happening again?
Lessons Learned
In this case, the malicious insider was stealing customer data for personal gain. Other insiders
may steal, destroy, or release sensitive information for revenge or other motives. To do so, they
may leverage their own privileges or steal coworkers’ credentials to gain unauthorized access.
Key countermeasures to prevent future malicious insider activities include:
Mitigation and Prevention
•1 C
ontrol and restrict data access to sensitive information through the principle of
“need-to-know.”
•1 Increase monitoring and logging of sensitive and restricted areas, systems and data.
•1 M
onitor users to include external storage devices; restrict camera and smartphone
use in sensitive areas.
•1 Disable access for activity deemed inappropriate or posing organizational risks.
56
Section IV
Mobile Device Security –
IT Best Practices
Increased mobility and improving technology mean even more data is communicated via
smartphones. Rules and policies may prevent this data from being compromised:
•0 U
se a Mobile Device Management (MDM) console to establish centralized rules and
policy enforcement on corporate-issued and BYOD items.
•0 R
equire users to enable screen locking with eight or more uppercase-lowercasealphanumeric-special characters passcodes on devices accessing organization
information.
•0 W
hen storing, transmitting, or processing sensitive information, enable encryption
features for data at-rest and data in-motion.
•0 Perform security audits on all authorized mobile device apps.
•0 E
stablish a dialogue with users to prevent unauthorized work-arounds to
security methods.
aintain awareness on mobile security. Monitor for new threats and educate users to stay
M
ahead of adversaries.
57
Section IV
Mobile Device Security –
User Best Practices
Mobile devices are a necessity in our lives—but they’re also targets. These
suggestions may reduce the risk of mobile devices being compromised:
• A
lways use a password. Passcodes with eight or more uppercase-lowercasealphanumeric-special characters are more secure than the standard 4- or 6-digit
PIN codes.
• N
ever leave a device unattended! Physical access to a mobile device is the easiest way
to gain unauthorized access.
• Keep the device up to date to avoid common methods of mobile breaches.
• O
nly use trusted sources for apps. This includes the iTunes store for Apple devices,
and Google Play for Androids. Downloading third-party apps from other sources can
enable malicious software.
• U
se EDR solution to identify affected systems. Once an affected system is identified,
disk forensics paired with an EDR solution can allow a direct view into additional
systems that may be affected.
• E
nable screen locking. Shorter intervals between use and auto lock reduce chances for
others to gain easy access.
• Avoid jailbroken devices, which have decreased security.
Potential Indicator of an Insider Threat —
the Disgruntled Employee
Insider threat activity is an abuse of authorized access to any organizational, industrial,
or government resource by an individual who harms the interested party. Disgruntled
employees can compromise information or systems—and be exploited by malicious
entities for information or system access. Potential causes and indicators include:
•Employees disgruntled with an organization, supervisor, or coworkers strong
enough to cause them to seek revenge.
•Attempts to encourage others to violate laws or disobey organizational
security policies.
58
Section V
Assets and
Data
As we’ve seen, threat actor categories include various motivations such as
Financial, Fun, or Espionage. The VERIS Framework breaks down these tangibles
into affected asset varieties and data varieties.
VERIS —
Affected Assets
When we examine affected asset varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse over the
previous five DBIRs (2014-2018), Server (69.6%), Media (13.8%), User Device (12.5%), and
Person (11.2%) are the top affected assets:
Affected Assets
1 year (n=224)
5 years (n=1005)
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Server
Media
User Device
Person
Network
Figure 15.
Affected Asset Varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
59
Section V
Servers are the most common assets affected; these are predominantly databases that
internal actors access with existing privileges, but in an unauthorized manner. The oft-cited
example of healthcare workers accessing medical records for identity theft or satisfying
curiosity is a common scenario. Public sector and financial organizations are also prevalent in
this style of attack.
The Media asset category is typically employees misusing physical access to obtain corporate
documents or customer payment cards.
General privilege abuse of desktops and laptops is the typical action taken against User
Devices, but use of unapproved hardware (e.g., USB flash drives to exfiltrate data) and data
mishandling (e.g., emailing data to personal accounts) are also present.
The Person category includes situations where human behavior is influenced to act in an
inappropriate or malicious manner. In over 60% of breaches involving human assets, bribery or
solicitation was recorded.
Countermeasure —
Perform Vulnerability Scanning and Penetration Testing
Vulnerability assessment and penetration testing activities can help identify gaps within
a security strategy, including potential ways for insider threats to maneuver within the
enterprise environment. Effective assessments should include:
• Vulnerability Scanning
Mainly automated, conducted at least quarterly, and performed by internal and
external teams; scanning seeks vulnerabilities in the network (and/or applications)
and associated exploit vectors.
• Penetration Testing
Mostly manual, conducted annually, and typically performed by an external team; an
exploit-related vulnerability assessment; penetration tests seek to leverage exploits
from identified vulnerabilities to access the network and applications.
• “ Red Team” Penetration Testing
An advanced penetration test; mainly manual, conducted as required, and performed
by an external team, which takes the role of a threat actor to test a security strategy
and identify gaps.
• “ Purple Team” Exercises
An advanced penetration test; matches “Blue Team” (organization) with “Red Team”
(attackers) in a coordinated, learning effort.
60
Section V
Asset
Management
Knowing the data an organization keeps and where it’s stored is essential to
effective mitigation and response. To protect data and investigate its potential
compromise, maintain an up-to-date asset inventory, track assets, and know
where sensitive data is.
This means conducting periodic asset inventories and e-discovery exercises. Keep employeeassigned systems and data storage devices for a predetermined time after employee
departure from the organization. Monitor current systems for data loss. If external media
devices are authorized, monitor and log data transfers. Scan for sensitive data improperly
marked or stored in unauthorized locations.
Use an IDS / IPS. When possible, leverage an FIM solution and whitelist applications. FIM
validates the integrity of operating system and application software files, using a verification
comparison between the file state and the known, good baseline. By using a FIM solution,
data changes can be detected and alerted. Limit unauthorized or BYOD access by disabling
automatic network configuration, such as Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP).
Countermeasure —
Employ Endpoint Security Solutions
Solutions for endpoint activity monitoring, collection, and analysis should include:
• Host-Based Firewalls
Software or hardware security system for monitoring and controlling incoming and
outgoing network traffic based on predetermined security rules.
• Host IDS
System for analyzing packets and alerts (passive) on suspicious host activity.
• Host IPS
System for analyzing packets and blocking (active) suspicious host activity; typically
possesses a subset of IDS rules and coexists with IDS.
61
Section V
Countermeasure —
Employ Endpoint Security Solutions (continued)
• EDR Solution
Software solution for attack monitoring; auditing and logging; evidence collection
and incident response.
• Asset Inventory
Tool for tracking all assets, including critical servers and systems.
• Critical Assets
Identify, track, and account for critical assets; prioritize them for enhanced
protection and monitoring.
• System Baselining
Solution for establishing system-hardening baselines; deriving known applications
and trusted processes for monitoring and investigative purposes.
• R
emovable Media Policy
Requirement for eliminating or restricting USB flash drive and other removable
media usage.
• A
nti-Virus (AV) Protection
Solution for protecting systems from viruses.
• N
etwork and Application Logs
Reviewing logs for suspicious, anomalous system activity.
• Device Encryption
Consider encrypting hard disk drives and mobile systems including laptops,
smartphones, and portable storage devices.
• SIEM Solution
Tool for reviewing aggregated log data from network, security devices, systems, and
applications for suspicious or anomalous system activity.
• FIM Solution
Tool for monitoring and validating file integrity and system changes.
• A
pplication Whitelisting (AWL)
Solution for controlling applications permitted for installation, as well as execution on
an endpoint.
• C
onfiguration Management / Patching Management
Solutions for managing system configuration changes and application
patching updates.
Monitor suspicious system activity, with alerts for unusual off-hours activity, volumes
of outbound activity, and remote connections. Leverage an SIEM capability to monitor
insider threat activities; periodically update detection rules and watch lists.
62
Section V
VERIS —
Data Varieties
Data Varieties represent the type of information targeted, such as Personal,
Secrets, or Source Code. Examining Insider and Privilege Misuse over the
previous year (2018), we see Medical (44.9%), Personal (32.1%), and Internal
(14.8%) as the leading types. The top 10 Data Varieties within Insider and Privilege
Misuse for 2018 and the previous five years (2014-2018) are:
Data Varieties
1 year (n=243)
5 years (n=1065)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Medical
Personal
Internal
Secrets
Payment
Credential
Bank
Source
Classified
Copyrighted
Figure 16.
Top 10 Data Varieties within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
As expected, the Healthcare industry represents the majority of victims experiencing medical data
breaches (84%). Healthcare is also one of the most common industries (with the public sector)
in personal data breaches. Recalling “Figure 10. Affected Industries within Insider and Privilege
Misuse Breaches,” Healthcare and the public sector comprised the top two industries. Clearly,
there is a significant association between the top industries and top compromised data varieties.
As previously noted, this is influenced by our data contributors, as well as by industry-specific
notification laws.
63
Section V
VERIS — Sensitive Data
Breached by Industry
When we examine the combination of sensitive internal data (Internal), intellectual
property (Secrets), and classified information for the previous five DBIRs (20142018), we see vast diversity in industry representation:
Sensitive Data Breached by Industry
1 year (n=54)
5 years (n=267)
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (54)
Public Administration (92)
Manufacturing (31-33)
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction (21)
Financial Insurance (52)
Healthcare and Social Assistance (62)
Real Estate, Rental and Leasing (53)
Admin & Support, Waste Management, Remediation (56)
Information (51)
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation (71)
Retail Trade (43-45)
Transportation and Warehousing (48-49)
Education Services (61)
Wholesale Trade (42)
Construction (23)
Utilities (22)
Accommodation and Food Services (72)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
Figure 17.
Industries within Insider and Privilege Misuse Breaches
Involving Select Data Varieties
When we focus on data varieties that aren’t as monetizable as payment card or banking
information, industries such as Manufacturing, Mining and Professional Services become
more prominent.
Industries have varied threat landscapes, with some more susceptible to insider threats than
others. Much of this is driven by actor motives and the data types insiders can access.
Threat modeling should reflect where data resides or is processed within a specific organization,
and how its employees and partners could potentially misuse it.
64
Section V
Data Classification
and Protection
Simply put, data needs protection from unauthorized access; this is especially
true for sensitive data. And ultimately, this data has to be protected from both
inside and external threat actors. Components of a data protection solution should
include data classification and data protection, at least.
Classification
As data is created, it’s essential to classify it correctly. In turn, classification determines who
should have access and what they can do with the data. Data creation typically occurs in two
ways: automated or manual.
Automated
Examples include data downloaded to or uploaded from a specific application, or data written
by a specific application to a well-defined storage area. It could involve sensitive information
downloaded from a back-end server. The location of the download isn’t a reliable way to
determine data sensitivity; in the case of a back-end server, classification at the point of creation
(i.e., when the information is downloaded) is needed since the data could be stored anywhere.
Manual
Users often manually create sensitive information, such as intellectual property. This can be done
through email or another client application. Users must be able to classify manual information in a
uniform and persistent manner (i.e., more than just a text string at the bottom of a presentation).
Accurate classification is the basis for a successful data protection program. Additionally,
classification must be meaningful—if data is classified as sensitive, that should come with a clear
definition and protection policies. Data classification should also be visible to users, together with
displays about classification policies, for a powerful learning experience.
Protection
Instead of only blocking potential intrusions, protecting data (such as by encryption) is an
important approach, and also helps employees carry out daily tasks more seamlessly. Data
protection should be based on a data classification policy and be uniform throughout the
organization. Encryption mechanisms that can’t be inspected by the organization must
be prevented.
Complement data classification with a content protection solution, provide persistent encryption
capabilities, link to classification policies, and automatically invoke these when assigning
classification levels.
65
Section V
Hardening the Digital Environment
Hardening the digital environment includes tightening up the security of the network,
systems, applications, data, and accounts:
•0 Network
Segment the network and restrict access to sensitive systems; place firewalls on
the outer perimeter and between internal segments; encrypt external access
and Wi-Fi traffic.
•0 Systems
Encrypt hard disk drives and mobile systems such as laptops, smartphones, and portable
storage devices; eliminate or restrict the use of USB flash drives and other removable
media; ensure each system has a host-based AV solution and firewall installed.
•0 Applications
Uninstall unneeded apps; apply patches promptly; disable any auto-run features; ensure
AV is running and virus definitions are up to date.
•0 Data
Regularly remove unneeded data from servers and shares; back up critical data
and test these periodically; use a DLP solution to detect unauthorized movement of
sensitive data.
•0 Accounts
Establish a robust password policy; use MFA for remote and cross-segment access;
prohibit shared accounts; remove local admin rights and disable unnecessary accounts;
monitor admin and service accounts.
Countermeasure —
Apply Data Security Measures
Managing the data management life cycle while maintaining confidentiality, integrity,
and availability, by including:
• Data Ownership
Identifying data owners for data classification.
• Data Classification
Classifying data for determining access and protection measures.
• Data Protection
Protecting data through endpoint security solutions (e.g., system baselining,
AV protection).
• Data Disposal
Properly disposing data at the end of its life cycle.
66
Section V
Scenario #5 —
the Feckless Third-Party
The feckless third-party is defined as a threat actor with inside access who through
negligence, misuse or malicious intent compromises organizational security.
The Situation11
While many investigations at the VTRAC | Labs are straightforward, involving commodity servers
and operating systems, others require working directly with embedded systems or hardware
components. Such engagements are sent directly to the Labs, where we have sophisticated
tools—beyond what a typical investigator can deploy on the go.
In one investigation involving suspected cyber-espionage, a customer contacted us to determine
why certain devices were behaving suspiciously. Reviewing network traffic, the customer realized
a particular server model they used extensively had been sending Simple Network Management
Protocol (SNMP) traffic to a Southeast Asia IP address. Since this IP address wasn’t associated
with any of their vendors or customers, they were concerned about data exfiltration. This was
amplified when the server vendor couldn’t explain the remote IP address connections.
Investigative Response
The customer provided a physical server, a verified forensic image of another server, and the
suspicious remote IP address. We went to work, setting up an air-gapped environment to test the
server and physically inspecting its components.
Nothing out of the ordinary was discovered during the physical inspection; however, a remote
management module, which is the system component responsible for communications
management, was identified.
Next, we recreated the suspect communication. The server was connected to a full packet
capture (PCAP) device. On booting, it attempted to find the network node associated with
internal (RFC 1918) IP 172.16.x.x. Assuming this was its default gateway, the server was powered
down. Traffic for IP 172.16.x.x was routed to the network PCAP device, and the server was
rebooted. Once the server received IP 172.16.x.x in response, it attempted to communicate with
the suspicious IP address.
These communications were controlled by the server’s firmware, so our next step was to review
this firmware. We downloaded several versions of the firmware from the vendor’s website.
A review determined the boot loader and file system in use. We found no indication of the
suspicious remote IP address hard coded in the firmware.
11
This scenario was published originally as standalone DBD scenario “Supply-Chain Reaction – the Whole Enchilada” (https://enterprise.verizon.com/resources/).
67
Section V
With the software ruled out, we used an oscilloscope to determine the location and
specifications of an active serial port for debugging. This debugging port offered a way of
connecting to the main processor associated with remote management. This permitted
monitoring of the management card boot process and access to its command shell.
We extracted the firmware source code from the server for analysis, including searching for
the suspicious IP address. It took effort, but we eventually found the suspicious IP address in
hexadecimal format within a configuration file. This configuration file was identical to the ones
downloaded, but contained the suspicious IP address in encoded format.
Ultimately, it was determined that all system components and code matched those shipped from
the vendor. Due to the complexity of modern computing environments and corporate networks,
it’s a challenge to keep track of every server and connection required for operation. Here, even
the vendor was unaware of owning and using this suspicious IP address, which itself led to a
very lengthy investigation. Rogue mechanisms, such as remote management modules or similar
embedded devices, can provide entrance and exit vectors for threat actors—and must be
addressed by security measures.
Lessons Learned
The customer had several good security practices in place. For instance, their detection of
the unexpected traffic resulted from routine network monitoring. However, had they tested
the systems prior to deployment, they might have noticed the suspicious traffic and evaluated
the risks. This would have also offered them an opportunity to work with the vendor at a more
relaxed pace.
It’s good practice to upgrade to the latest version of firmware for testing prior to deployment.
With the new firmware in place, a baseline of system behavior should know what “normal”
looks like. Familiarity with normal setup and behavior can be the difference between detecting
anomalies signaling an attack and becoming aware at a far less convenient time.
Mitigation and Prevention
•0 V
et hardware supply chains, to include original equipment manufacturers and value-added
resellers, for reputation and reliability.
•0 A
dopt an IT management process that covers design, testing, management and review that
aims to ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
•0 M
aintain an asset inventory; track and account for all assets, to include critical servers and
systems.
68
Section V
Detection and Response
• M
onitor for suspicious network traffic, such as unusual off-hours activity, volumes of outbound
activity, and remote connections.
• K
eep baseline system images and trusted process lists; use these known standards to compare
with compromised systems.
• T
emporarily block outbound Internet traffic, change user account passwords, and search for
indicators of compromise.
• Disable compromised user accounts, remove malicious files, rebuild affected systems.
Potential Indicators of Insider Threat Activity
While investigating various cybersecurity incidents over the years, we’ve seen various
indicators of potential insider threat activity. Some of these include:
•Attempts or successful access to systems and data without a valid “need-to-know.”
•Requesting access to information outside of normal job duties.
•Unusual or erratic personal behavior.
•Highly disgruntled attitude.
•Working odd or late hours without reason.
•Apparent, unexplained affluence or excessive indebtedness.
•Efforts to conceal foreign contacts, travel, interests, or suspicious activity.
•Unreported offers of financial assistance, gifts or favors by a foreign national.
•Exploitable behavior, such as criminal activity, sexual misconduct, excessive
gambling, alcohol or drug abuse, or problems at work.
We denote these as possible indicators, because taken individually or even in twos
and threes, they don’t necessarily mean an insider is conducting malicious activity. But
taken as a whole, they may be concerning, and attention should be paid.
69
Section VI
Final
Thoughts
As this report makes clear, while the insider threat may be complex and
challenging, it’s not impossible to defend against.
Ultimately, when implementing an insider threat strategy, focus on two factors: assets and
people. Know your assets: what and where are the most important ones, both static and kinetic,
and how you’ll protect, monitor, and investigate their compromise. Know your people: who has
access to assets, and how you’ll vet, monitor, and investigate any potential malicious activities.
Focus on protecting your high-value assets, both physical and kinetic, then address areas
of highest risk. By addressing the most impactful situations, rather than just applying
blanket coverage, you can improve your Insider Threat Program’s effectiveness. These 11
countermeasures can reduce risks and assist in incident response:
1. Integrate Security Strategies and Policies
2. Conduct Threat Hunting Activities
3. Perform Vulnerability Scanning and Penetration Testing
4. Implement Personnel Security Measures
5. Employ Physical Security Measures
6. Implement Network Security Solutions
7. Employ Endpoint Security Solutions
8. Apply Data Security Measures
9. Employ Identity and Access Management Measures
10. Establish Incident Management Capabilities
11. Retain Digital Forensics Services
ISO 27001, the NIST Cyber Security Framework (CSF), and other compliance programs
and guidance frameworks can help you implement these countermeasures. Ultimately, you
have the power and information to minimize your risk of becoming the subject of the next
cybercrime headlines.
verizonenterprise.com
© 2019 Verizon. All Rights Reserved. The Verizon name and logo and all other names, logos, and slogans identifying Verizon’s products and services are trademarks
and service marks or registered trademarks and service marks of Verizon Trademark Services LLC or its affiliates in the United States and/or other countries. All
other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. 02/19
70
Insider Threat Report
© 2019 Verizon. All rights reserved. The Verizon name and logo and all other names, logos and slogans identifying Verizon’s products and services are trademarks
and service marks or registered trademarks and service marks of Verizon Trademark Services LLC or its affi liates in the United States and/or other countries. All other
trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners. 03/19